This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The big issue is the Fascist-Feminist synthesis means both the Left and the Right actually agree on this issue, but for wildly different reasons:
As such, there's almost no political appetite for decreasing the age of consent.
As for what it ought to be, 15 does indeed seem like a more reasonable age than 18. It wasn't even that uncommon all that long ago, heck a lot of countries in Europe have their ages at 14. In terms of mentality, a lot of it depends on the individual's IQ. A 130 IQ kid could be emancipated at 13 and would probably make better decisions than the average adult, and there's an argument to be made that an 85 IQ person should always be treated as a child to some extent. But polite society has an allergy to explicit references to IQ so we just randomly draw a line at 16-18 and call it good enough I guess.
How convenient it's only we knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who object to your reasonable proposal!
Every time I see this argument in the wild. Every. God. Damn. Time. It's maybe not a troll, but it is a guy who genuinely wants to stick his dick into underage pussy and feels unfairly victimised by society who think 30-40 year old men should not be eyeing up 13 year olds for their big racks. Of course society is made up of the stupid and the really intelligent deep thinkers like Underage Pussy For Me guys are the victims of their unreasonable distaste.
Either you've got a lousy memory, or you're calling me a liar.
I do have a terrible memory, so I didn't remember you were one of the "it's perfectly normal for older men to want to fuck pubescent girls" types.
You claim it's not because of such attraction on your part, but pure devotion to scientific fact? Well, you have your claims as to motives, I have my beliefs as to motives, and since nobody is a mind-reader, all such will remain in the privacy of our skulls.
Unfalsifiable beliefs are pretty weak sauce. There are very few things more antithetical to the purpose of this place than do this kind of bulverism in the pursuit of defending taboos.
More options
Context Copy link
Devotion to liberty.
I don't believe I've ever said that there aren't 12-year-old girls that I find sexually attractive. I haven't said that because it'd be untrue; while I'm not a paedophile in the proper sense, there are some very-early bloomers out there and, indeed, postpubescence is all that's really needed for the normal male gaze to approve. However, I have no intention of pursuing them in that fashion, and this is not related to my opposition to the current Anglospheric ages of consent.
Do you realise that you've set up epistemic closure, here? If someone says that he wants to lower the AoC because he wants to fuck kids, you count him as part of your "every time". If someone says the opposite, you count him as a liar and still as part of "every time". That's not an algorithm that depends on what the truth actually is; regardless of the evidence, you'll simply become more sure of yourself.
I actually suggest you take a look through my post history. See if I'm really the sort to lie about myself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link